At the beginning of the current legal year, Irish judges broke with three centuries of tradition, and ceased wearing wigs in court. On 13 October last, the Minister for Justice issued a press release stating that he had signed into law two new Statutory Instruments to make the wearing of ceremonial wigs optional in the courts. The Statutory Instruments came into force the following day, 14 October, just in time for the new legal term (Irish Times, here, here, and here). The making of the SIs was duly gazetted in Iris Oifigúil on 18 October (see (2011) 83 Iris Oifigúil 1417; pdf). Hence, the Circuit Court Rules (Judges Robes) 2011 (SI No 523 of 2011) and the Rules of the Superior Courts (Robes of Bench) 2011 (SI No 524 of 2011) dispensed with the requirement that judges wear ceremonial wigs in court. However, it is only this week, a full three weeks since the Minister’s press release, that the full text of the SIs became available online. (As I have asked many times before on this blog, why does it take so long for such important legal information as cases, SIs, and Acts, to be made generally available online?). Both SIs provide that:

A Judge shall not be required to wear a wig of a ceremonial type during [Court] sittings.

A legal practitioner when appearing in any court shall not be required to wear a wig or a robe of the kind heretofore worn or any other wig or robe of a ceremonial type.

As with judicial wigs, this would make the wearing or not of wigs and gowns an issue for individual practitioners. In any event, formal attire isn’t always necessary in court. For example, in St Edmundsbury and Ipswich Diocesan Board of Finance v Clark [1973] Ch 323, Megarry J (pictured above) arranged a mock funeral in Iken in Suffolk to test how easy it would be to carry a coffin along an alleged right of way, and directed that neither he, nor the Registrar, nor counsel would be robed for the occasion:

Robes are convenient in normal circumstances as an indication of the functions of those engaged in the proceedings, and as enhancing the formality and dignity of a grave occasion. … But robes are not essential, … Jurisdiction is neither conferred not excluded by mere matters of attire or locality … ([1973] Ch 323, 333).

In the case itself, the Court of Appeal ultimately held that, when the Diocese had sold land surrounding a church to Clark and reserved a right of way across the land to get to the church from the public highway, the physical state of the pathway was such as to indicate that a right of way on foot only was intended ([1975] 1 All ER 772 (CA); see also Gillon v Baxter[2003] EWCA Civ 1591 (10 October 2003); Yip v Frolich[2004] SASC 287 (17 September 2004); Perlman v Rayden[2004] EWHC 2192 (Ch) (07 October 2004); Ali v Lane[2006] EWCA Civ 1532 (21 November 2006)).

This was not the only time Megarry visited the scene of litigation: in Tito v Waddell (No 2) [1977] Ch 106; [1977] 2 WLR 496 (the longest-running civil case before McLibel (amazon | imdb | wikipedia): Steel & Morris v McDonald’s Corporation[1999] EWCA Civ 1144 (31 March 1999); Steel & Morris v UK 68416/01 [2005] ECHR 103 (15 February 2005)), he ordered the court on a three-week trip to the southern Pacific island of Banaba to view the island round which the dispute was centred – during which he caught a stomach bug from local roast pork!

Notwithstanding section 117 of the Bill, I suspect that the legal profession will be slow to move to away from gowns in court, and from business suits in solicitors’ office. Writing in the Guardian during the summer, Alex Aldridge was surprised to read a recent endorsement of flip-flops as a suitable form of office attire by the corporate legal big cheese William Urquhart:

Business casual is gaining acceptance in the UK, influenced by US trends. But formality still rules in many firms, and defendants often want ‘a proper lawyer in a wig’

… to date, few firms in Britain have deviated from the year-round suit-and-tie policy … However, in an increasingly international legal market, traditional British commitment to smartness seems to be wavering: a growing number of London firms are adopting business casual dress codes.

… So how are British lawyers … adapting to this brave new world of business casual? According to Kevin Poulter, a solicitor with Bircham Dyson Bell, not so well. … For women, who make up around 60% of new entrants to the legal profession, business casual dressing success is proving similarly elusive.

The shift towards a more relaxed – if more confusing – clothing regime for solicitors is in step with a general trend across the legal profession towards greater informality. … Three years ago, barristers’ wigs and gowns were ditched for civil and family cases, and the five different seasonal costumes previously worn by high court judges scrapped in favour of a new, simpler year-round outfit …

… there are signs that looser office dress codes are spilling over into the public sphere … but it risks undermining the image of prudent conservatism and good judgment that the legal profession has long traded on.

On the other hand, Quebec tax authorities have insisted that their employees dress appropriately for the workplace, where exercise shorts, tank tops, flip-flops and other overly casual items do not belong.

It has been put to me that argument in favour of TDs’ sartorial expression does not adequately take into account the need to ensure respect for the Dáil (the lower house of parliament), that TDs’ failure to dress appropriately shows an unpardonable disrespect for the Dáil; and that there are many similar occasions – such as court – where respect requires appropriately formal attire. Nevertheless, just as I suspect that the move away from wigs and gowns in the Courts will be slow and gradual, so I think that the Dáil will be slow to move away from jackets and shirts and suits and ties. However, my point is that rigid conformity is not always necessary: sometimes, the circumstances dispense with the need for formality; other times, necessary expression requires that the formality be subverted. And in those latter circumstances, that expression should be respected too.

8 Responses to “Wigs, gowns, and sartorial expression”

Yes, individuals should be free to wear what they want, I agree. Then again, sometimes it is advantageous to be formal and to put a distance between yourself and the public. The Family Court here ditched wigs a long time ago, but ended up readopting them after a series of incidents involving litigants threatening judges. Wigs provided a measure of anonymity and distance. Still I think it should be up to individuals to choose.

If people wish to dress in a way befitting of traditional legal, I think it should be their prerogative.

If you tend to be watching a piece of legislation or awaiting a judgment, it can be agonising waiting for the same to appear online, often it takes several weeks to two months before it becomes available. Surely it doesn’t take that long to copy, paste and upload a document.

[…] out in new gowns. At the beginning of the last judicial year, the wearing of wigs by judges became optional, and most have since abandoned the horsehair. At the time, I posed the question, with wigs gone, […]

[…] gave an interview about this to the John Murray Show on RTÉ Radio 1, and the hoary old chestnut of proper attire for members of the Dáil and Seanad inevitably came up. But it was not the most news-worthy […]

My recent tweets

Blogroll (or, really, a non-blogroll)

What I'd like for here is a simple widget that takes the list of feeds from my existing RSS reader and displays it here as a blogroll. Nothing fancy. I'd love a recommendation, if you have one.

I had built a blogroll here on my Google Reader RSS subscriptions. Google Reader produced a line of html for each RSS subscription category, each of which I pasted here. So I had a list of my subscriptions as my blogroll, organised by category, which updated whenever I edited Google Reader. Easy peasy. However, with the sad and unnecessary demise of that product, so also went this blogroll. Please take a moment to mourn Google Reader. If there's an RSS reader which provides a line of html for the list of subscriptions, or for each RSS subscription category as Google Reader did, I'd happily use that. So, as I've already begged, I'd love a recommendation, if you have one.

Meanwhile, please bear with me until I find a new RSS+Blogroll solution